Oe duds, 


BRITISH RULE IN INDIA 


Extract from Speech. 


LEAGUE OF NATIONS 


BY 


HON. JOSEPH IRWIN FRANCE 


OF MARYLAND 


IN THE 


SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 


OCTOBER 8 and 9, 1919 


Sg 


WASHINGTON 


1919 
151429-—20190 . 


’ 
1 
+ 
‘ 
+ 
. 
e 
{ 


penn 


te 


SPEECH 


or 


HON. JOSEPH IRWIN FRANCE. 


BRITISH RULE IN INDIA. 

Mr. FRANCH. Sirs, do you feel justified in the ratification 
of a treaty under which this Republic guarantees to perpetuate 
the rule of the British aristocracy in India, a rule out of har- 
mony with all of the best traditions of the English people, one 
characterized by a ruthless exploitation which has received for 
generations the condemnation of the liberal statesmen of 
England? 

You can not convince the American people that the rule of 
Britain in India has been benevolent. The American youth 
of several generations have learned At their mothers’ knees, in 
their churches, and at their schools the tragic story of India’s 
poverty and agony as she lies-helpless and prostrate in error’s 
chains. ‘They have seen the ghastly pictures of those weak, 
emaciated, poverty-stricken Hindus, buman specters, living 
skeletons, 50,000,000 of whom suffer the unceasing torture of 
hunger gnawing at their vitals as they live ever in the deep 
gloom of ignorance and sorrow and under the ever-haunting 
shadow of death by slow starvation. They have heard the 
tragic, awful history of her cholera, plagues, and famines, and 
have given generously for her relief. India, one of the earliest 
homes of our Aryan race, was in some respects the greatest of 
all the empires. Her civilization reaches back beyond the 
dawn of history. Three thousand years before the Christian 
era she carried on an extended commerce with mighty Babylon. 
Two thousand years before Christ the Egyptian monarchs 
wore her exquisitely woven fabrics and used her fine muslins 
for the winding sheets of their sacred dead. Six centuries be- 
fore our era on the banks of the Indus our Aryan ancestors 

15142920190 3 


4 


had builded a civilization, with customs, arts, architecture, and 
literature: of peculiar dignity and beauty. They worked with 
marvelous skill in iron, copper, brass, and the precious metals. 
In their sculpture they emulated and approached the match- 
less purity and beauty of the Grecian marbles. In their 
philosophy they surpassed the Hgyptians and anticipated the 
Greeks. The Brahman. priests of India advanced the as- 
tronomy of China and Keypt. Her science, agriculture, and 
industry flourished through wonderful centuries and she grew 
in wealth and power, her fabulous riches at last making her 
the treasure house of the world. In the fifteenth century the 
tales of her marvelous resources became known to the western 
peoples. The Portuguese came, then the Dutch and the French, 
put after the Battle of Plassy, in 1757, England’s supremacy 
was established and she assumed responsibility for India’s 
destiny. Judged by the ancient standards, Britain’s rule might 
find something to commend it, but measured by the best tradi- 
tions and ideals of the English people, no man can successfully 
defend it. India was rich. The British exploitation, which 
has exalted and enriched Hngland, has stricken India down 
into the depths of desperate poverty. 
INDIA’S POVERTY, 
BWdamund Burke said, in 1783: 


There is nothing before the eyes of the natives [of India] but an end- 
ess, hopeless prospect of new flights of birds of prey and passage, with 
their appetites continually renewing for food that is continually wasting. 

The Rev. Abbe J. A. Dubois—1820—English missionary of 
Mysore, said: 

Alas, it is not Bibles the poor Hindus want or ask for; it is food and 
raiment. When the belly is empty and the back bare, the best disposed, 
éven amons the Christians, feel themselves but very little inclined to 
peruse the Bible. , 

Sir W. W. Hunter—1880—said : 

There remain 40,000,000 of people who go ihrough life on insuflicient 
food, 

Sir Charles Eliot—1888—chief commissioner of Assam, said: 

lalf the agricultural population do not know from one year’s end to 
another what it is to have a full meal. 

151429—20190 


5 


Sir William Digby—1900-——in Prosperous British India, 
states: 


In 1900 the agricultural population increased by 60,000,000. If the 
same income remains in 1900 as in 188-, it follows that 40,000,000 
(according to Sir W. W. Hunter) plus 50,000,000 make 90,000,000, who 
are continuously hungry in British India at the heginning of the twen- 
tieth century. 


R, C. Dutt—1902—an English authority, states: 


The extreme poverty of the people is becoming patent every, day. © * * 
lt is estimated from official records that one-fifth of the Indian rural 
population, or between forty or fifty million people, are insufficiently fed, 
even in years of good harvest. * * * India alone sends us a tragic 
tale of poverty, famine, and death. 


Rey. J. 'T. Sunderland—1905—American missionary in India, 
states: 


The poverty of India is something you can have little conception 
of, * * * The extreme, abject, the awful poverty of the people. 


Hon. Samuel Edwin Montagu, state secretary for India in 1917, 
stated: 

But it (India) is still a country of .poverty. The majority of the 
people live on a few rupees a month, and it takes three rupees to make 


an American dollar. Their country has vast resources awaiting develop- 
ment, but the people are still very poor, 


R,. C. Dutt, in his Economic History of India, 1900, states : 


The appalling poverty and joylessness of his life under such condi- 
tions can not be easily pictured. THis hut is seldom rethatched and 
affords little shelter from cold and rain; his wife is clothed in rags; 
his little children go without clothing. Of furniture he has none; an 
old blanket is quite a luxury in the cold weather, and if his children 
can tend cattle or his wife can do home work to cke out his income he 
considers himself happy. It is literally a fact and not a figure of speech 
that agricultural laborers and their families in India generally suffer 
from insufficient food from year’s end to year’s end. 


Mrs, Annie Besant, June, 1919, in the London Daily Herald, 
states: 

About half the people of India get only one meal a fay and that is 
not a sufficient meal. The average life of an individual is only 23 
years; in Hngland it is 40 years and in New Zealand 60 years. The 
real danger is a hunger revolution. 

Sir Frederick Treyes, 1904, then the most distinguished sur- 
geon in England, stated, after a visit to India: 

Possibly the first impression of India which sueceeds the realization 
of the strangeness of all things is an impression of teeming life—of 


the unwonted numbers of living beings, human and animal, who crowd 
the land. The country would seem to be overrun by a multitude of 


151429—20190 


6 


menu, women, and children, all of about the same degree, a little below 
the most meager comfort and a little above the nearest reach of starva- 
tion. These are some of the great hordes who provide in their lean 
bodies victims for the yearly sacrifice to cholera, famine, and plague. 
Plague will slay 20,000 in a week, cholera ten times that number in a 
year, and the famine of one well-remembered time accounted for five 
and a guarter millions of dead people. 


The extreme poverty of India is indicated by the following 
figures giving the comparative per capita wealth and income for 
several of the countries: 


Comparative table, 


{ 
National | National 
wealth per | income per 
capita. | capita. 

: _ ee ee 
United States. .... sigsbwadtweuctechan. aacoecmttesas semen $2,154. 00 | $372. 00 
Groat. Britaine, i221 - selseclne tsa e dela aie cee awaetoaia eee aerate 1, 913.00 | 232.00 
MTAN Che hoch ana ean eae SEER C Satire eccorecsnccr 1, 238.00 | 182.00 
Germialty si... clone deeieteeree cine see RAR Gao a wtiae CAnaaot 1, 512.00 | 156.00 
Augtria- HUN gary. . <2 se. aie sem sone main aamns’apicinnclereisiabiae gees 1,121.00 112.00 
tales Se 2 oe cinthe sete aires Sola ee conor eRe eee 555. 00 111.00 
India. Mr an pec ceeeiiee eae ee SS eer | bcp ae he | 70.00 | 9.75 


These figures are compiled frem the World Almanac. 

There is abundant evidenee in the testimony of Englishmen 
that poverty in India has heen for years increasing. S. S. 
Thorburn, financial commissioner of the Punjab, said that 
“seventy millions of Indians are in such a condition of hopeless 
poverty that nothing can relieve them.” This poverty has been 
brought about by the vast and continuous drain by England on 
India’s resourees. After the battle of Plassy this drain began. 
Brooks Adams. in his “ Law of Civilization and Decay,” page 
305, states: 


The savings of millions of human beings for centuries, the English 
seized and took to London, as the Romans had taken the spoils of 
Greece and Pontus to Italy. What the value of the treasure was no 
man can estimate, but it must bave been many millions of pounds—a 
vast sum in proportion to the stock ef precious metals then owned in 
Murope. 


This plunder and exploitation has continued in various forms. 
¥. J. Shore. a retired Bengal administrator, states: 


The fundamental principle of the English has been to make the whole 
Indian nation subservient, in every possible way, to the interests and 
benefits of themselves. They have taxed to the utmost limit; every 
suecessive Province, as it has fallen into our possession, has ‘been made 
a field for higher exaction, and it has always been our boast how 

151429—20190 


EEE 


fe 


greatly we have raised the revenue above that which the native rulers 
were able to extort. The Indians have been exeluded from every honor, 
dignity, or office which the lowest Englishman could be prevailed on to 
aeceent. 


A. J. Wilson, in The Forinightly Review, March, 1SS+4, states: 


In one form or another, we draw fully thirty millions of pounds a 
year from that unhappy country (India), and then the average wage of 
the natives is about £2 per annum, less, rather than more, in. many 
parts. Our Indian tribute, therefore, represents the entire earnings of 
upward of six million heads of families, say of thirty millions of people. 
It means the abstraction of more than ene-tenth of the entire sustenanee 
of India every year. 


Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, may I interrupt the Senator? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lenroor in the chair). 
Does the Senator from Maryland yield to the Senator from Ne- 
braska ? 

Mr. FRANCE. I do. 

Mr. NORRIS. I should like to inquire from whom the Sen- 
ator is reading? 

Mr. FRANCE. A. J. Wilson, an Englishman, in the Fort- 
nightly Review. These are nearly all extracts from the writ- 
ings of Englishmen. I have not quoted anything from the 
writings of any other than the English, except in one instance, 
where I quote from J. T. Sunderland, an American ex-mission- 
ary, a profound and sympathetic student of Indian affairs, 1 
have purposely not chosen any eriticisms which were not written 
by Englishmen themselves. 

This statement would seem to be almost incredible but for 
the supporting evidence we find on every hand of the continual 
drain on India by England in the form of interest, of official 
Salaries, and of land taxation. In his work on “ Wamines in 
India,” page 17, R. C. Dutt, also an Englishman, shows clearly 
that “the intensity and frequency of recent famines are greatly 
due to the vesourceless condition and chronic poverty of the cul- 
tivators, caused by the overassessment of the soil on which they 
depend for a living.” 

In this work Mr. Dutt pleads for tax reforms and asks that 
the tax ‘‘rate may not exceed one-fifth of the gross produce 
of the soil in any case *—preface 15—and states, “ the principle 
was adopted in the settlement of the central Provinces that 

15142920190 


8 


one-half the net product of the soil should be paid.” “ Virtwally, 

therefore, the rent fixed was one-third of the gross produce,” 

and cesses for improvements are levied in addition to this. 
Keir Hardie stated: 


The amount of taxes raised direct from the peasant is from 50 per 
cent to 75 per cent of the value of the yield of the land, in addition 
to which they have to pay local cesses, and yarious other small 
items, so that probably not less than 75 per cent of the harvest goes 
in taxes. * * * [Tt is this fact which keeps the people of India 
in a condition of hopeless grinding poverty. : 


The burden of such taxatien can be better understood when 
we recall that the Indian income is about $10 per capita per 
year, and that even very light taxes must oppress those whe 
are So poor. 

Of course, the people have the poorest and scantiest of 
clothing and the utmost insufficiency of fare. Quoting from an- 
other Englishman: “It is unusual to find a village woman who 
has any wraps at all. Most of them have to pass the night as 
best they can in their day clothes, a petticoat, wrapper, and 
bodice. As a rule they and their children sleep, in the cold 
weather, during the warm afternoons and in the early hours of 
the night.” 


The people can exist, if existence it can be called, on almost nothing. 
“The most instructive fact brought out by inquiries into the condition 
of five families of the laborer class was the extraordinary cheapness of 
a bare subsistence. A Baiga basket maker, whose family consisted of 
his wife and two small children, made on an average 12 baskets a week, 
which he sold for 2 pounds of unhusked rice or millet each. His 
monthly earnings were thus about 100 pounds of unhusked rice, worth 
rather less than a rupee. The family not only managed to live on this, 
supplemented with jungle fruits and roots, but saved annually about a 
rupee’s worth of grain, wherewith they purchased the scanty clothing 
which sufficed for them.” This should be, as it probably is, the world’s 
record in cheap living. The average works out thus: 


5. 
Total earnings in, food per annym 2-2... a 1G 
Less saving for clothing a. ee ee ee darn ow eee ae 1 
dapaw le Tor. LOOt. See ae ei ccs ea ea ae 15 


This was to be divided among four persons. (Dighy “ Prosperous 
British India,” p, 499.) 


A native peasant of India is fertunate io have fer a meal one 
handful of rice once a day. Truly, it is a Jand of hunger. 
Hardie said: 


The veal rat plague in India is poverty, and the flea which spreads Che 
disease is the Government. The cmaciated, bloodless bedies ef the ryot 
151429—-20190 


9 


has not plague-resisting powers, and so the fell disease finds him an easy 
victim. 


The Rey. J, Tf. Sunderland, formerly missionary from Amer- 
ica, a deep and sympathetic student of India, in the New England 
Magazine, September, 1900, said; 


The fact that at the end of 200 years of commercial dominance, and 
more than 40 years of absolute political sway, we are confronted with 
such indescribable poverty of the people, and with famine after famine 
of ‘such magnitude and severity as to make the world stand aghast, 
seems to prove beyond answer that England * * * has not made 
the welfare of India the first aim, but has subordinated India’s good to 
her own enrichment. We have the hideous business that Rome and 
Spain were engaged in so long, and for which in the end they paid so 
dear, ‘Called by its right name: What is the treatment of India by 
Hngland? It is national parasitism; it is the stronger nation sucking 
the blood of the weaker. It is imperialism. 


The deaths from famine, from 1854 te 1901, are estimated at 
28,825,000, and during the last 10 years of that peried the 
ayerage was 1,000,000 deaths each year, or on the average, as 
has been caleulated— 


Two British subjects passed away from starvation or starvation in- 
duced diseases every minute of every day and every night from Jan- 
uary i, 1899, to September 80, 1901. (Digby, “Prosperous British 
India,” page 130.) 


The peopte live in miserable, dark, unventilated huts, with 
thatched roofs often out of repair, and Johns Seurr, in the 
London Herald, of May 4, 1919, describing the living cemitions 
of the millhand, said: 


The vast masses of the millhands are housed under the most in- 
describable, filthy conditions, and one is not surprised to learn that 
the people die of famines, plague, and cholera like fleas. 


One of the further causes of this poverty, in addition to the 
drain ‘by official salaries, interest and high taxation, has been the 


virtual destruction by discriminatory tariffs against India and in 
faver of Wneland, designed to exclude Indian fabrics from the 
fnglish and Puropean markets, of the cotton-weaving industry 
of India. Owing to the unjust and oppressive tariffs the distafts 
of Tadia ‘disappeared before the power looms of Manchester. The 
manufacturers of England cruelly crushed out their helpless 


Indian competitors. 
TLIATERACY. 


Prepese this test to any colonial policy. Does it seck te edu- 
cate the colonial peoples? If it does, its aim is elevation and 
151429—20190 ; 


10 


liberation. If it does not, it is directed to that heartless ex- 
ploitation which ends in the degradation of the native people. 
By this test Erfeland has failed. India had an educational 
system. The English destroyed it. The sums spent by England 
for education in India are pitifully small, $0.015 per annum per 
capita, as against the $4 per capita which we have expended 
in the Philippines. Only 6,780,721 out of about 75,000,000 chil- 
dren in India attend school, and the illiteracy among these peo- 
ple, who are of the very highest intellectual capacity, is 93 
per cent, whereas during our 20 years of rule in the Philip- 
pines we have reduced the illiteracy there to 56 per cent. 
Seven per cent of the Hindus of the Aryan race, after 140 
years of British rule, are literate, as against 44 per cent of the 
Filipinos after 20 years of our rule there. England’s national 
policy, for so long dictated by a reactionary aristocracy, has 
never been favorable to the education of the masses at home, 
and it has opposed comprehensive plans for the education of the 
colonial people. Against this reactionary policy the liberals 
of England have for years protested. With reference to colonial 
peoples the British ruling Glass has said: 


We do not want generals, statesmen, and legislators; we want indus- 
irious husbandmen. 


In July of 1833, during a memorable debate upon the question 
of education in India, particularly with reference to the educa- 
tion of Hindus for public office, Lord Ellenborough said: 


We had won the Hmpire of India by the sword, and we must pre- 
serve it by the same means, doing at the same time everything that is 
consistent with our existence there for the good of the people, 


On July 10, 1833, Macaulay, speaking in opposition to Lord 
Hlienborough and in favor of the bill, which was to prevent the 
exclusion of Hindus from office in India, enunciated in a few 
great, burning, and immortal sentences the principles upon 
which a sound and upbuilding colonial policy should be based: 


We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India 
can be admitted to high civil and military office. We are told that this 
is the condition on which we hold our power. We are told that we are 
bound to confer on our subjects—every benefit which they are capable 
of enjoying? No. Which it is in our power to confer on them? No, But 
Which we can confer on them without hazard to our own domination. 
Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with 


151429—20190 


#1 


sound policy and sound morality. * * ™ It is the most childish 
ambition to covet dominion which adds to no man’s comfort or security. 
To the great trading nation, to the great manufacturing nation, no 
progress which any portion of the human race can make in knowledge, in 
taste for the conveniences of life, or in the wealth by which those con- 
yenieneces are produced, can be a matter of indifference. It is scarcely 
possible to calculate the benefits which we might derive from the diffusion 
of EKurepean civilization among the yast population of the Hast. It 
would be on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the 
people of India were well governed and independent of us than ill gov. 
erned and subject to us—that they were ruled by their own Kings, but 
wearing our broadcloth and working with our cutlery, than that they 
were performing their salaams to English collectors and English magis- 
trates, but were too ignorant to value or too poor to buy English manu- 
factures. To trade with civilized men is infinitely more profitable than 
to govern savages. That would indeed be a doting wisdom which, in 
order that India might vemain a dependency, would keep it a useless 
and costly dependeney, which would keep a hundred millions of men 
from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our 
slaves. It was, as Bernier tells us, the practice of the miserable tyrants 
whom he found in India, when they dreaded the capacity and spirit of 
some distinguished subject, and yet could not venture to murder him, to 
administer to him 2a daily dose of the pousta, a preparation of opium, 
the effeet of which was in a few months to destroy all the bodily and 
mental powers of the wretch who was drugged with it, and to turn him 
into a helpless idiot. That detestable artifice, more horrible than as- 
sassination itself, was worthy of those who employed it. It is no model 
for the English nation. We shall never consent to administer the pousta 
to a whole community, to stunefy and paralyze a great people whom 
God has committed to our charge for the wretched purpose of rendering 
them more amenable to our control. What is that power worth which 
is founded on yviee, on ignorance, on misery, which we can hold only 
by violating the most sacred duties, which as governors we owe to the 
governed, which as a people blessed with fax more than an ordinary 
measure of political liberty and of intellectual light, we owe to a race 
debased by 3,000 years of despotism and priesteraft? We are free, we 
are civilized to little purpose if we grudge to any portion of the human 
race an equal measure of freedom and civilization. 

Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may 
keep them submissive, or do we think that we can give them knowledge 
without awakening ambition, or do we mean to awaken ambition and 
to provide it with no legitimnte vent? Who will answer any of these : 
questions in the affirmative? Yet, one of them must be answered in the 
affirmative by every person who maintains that we ought permanently 
to exclude the natives from high office. I have no fears. The path of 
duty is plain before us, and it is also the path of wisdoni, of national 
prosperity, of national honer. 

The destinies ef our Indiau Dmpire are covered with thick darkness. 
It ig difficult to ferm any conjecture as to the fate reserved for a state 
which resembles no other in history and which forms by itself a sepa- 
rate class of political phenomena. The laws which regulate ifs growth 
and its deeay are still unknown to us. It may be that the public mind 
of India may expand under ow system till it has outgrown that system ; 
that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity 
for better government; that, having become instructed in European 
knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. 


151429—20190 ‘ 


12 


Whether such a day will ever come I know not, but never will I attempt 
to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes it will be the proudest day 
in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the lowest 
depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have 
made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would 
indeed be a title to glory all cur own. ‘The scepter may pass away from 
us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our most profound schemes of 
policy. Victory may be inconstant to our arms, but there are triumphs 
which are followed by no reverses. There is an empire exempt from all 
national causes of decay. These triumphs are the pacific triumphs of 
reason over barbarism; that empire is the imperishable empire of our 
arts and our morals, our literature and our law. (Vol, 19 (34d ser.), 
p. 536.) ; 


What a great colonial policy is outlined in these most cloquent 
words. Would that England might have followed the vision of 
that imperishable empire declared by this gifted and devoted 
champion of the oppressed. But it was not to be. Bourbonism 
never yields. It must be broken, crushed beneath the tires of 
time and progress. Great Englishmen have seen the vision, 
but the iron clutch of the reactionaries could not be loosed. 

And so, at the conclusion of this war, when the millions of 
India, whose sons had fought for England and fer us on the 
strength of our promises of self-determination and freedom for 
all peoples, demanded that right of self-determination, the in- 
famous Rowlatt act was passed, making the discussion of those 
demands a crime punishable with penalties of utmost severity. 
And then occurred one of the most impressive spectacles of our 
generation. Millions of the people of India, on a given day, with- 
out respect to the creeds Which had divided them, forsook their 
tasks and went into each other’s temples and mosques to pray 
for liberation. Unarmed, they undertook a passive resistance. 
They threw themselves before moving cars and were killed as a 
protest against their slavery. Yet these unarmed, helpless, pro- 
testing people were ruthlessly mowed down by the British ma- 
chine guns and slaughtered by bombs from the air. Thus did 
Ingland answer their plea for the self-determination which she 
and we had promised would be the fruit of this war. And at 
this very moment, I am informed, Indian troops are being used 
to crush that same plea for the fulfillment of our promises in 
Kgypt and in Ireland, the song of a poor and erushed people 
being employed to keep other oppressed peoples in subjection. 

151429—-20190 


se 


1 


Go 


The yellow grain comes only from the flail and purified gold 
only from the fire. England needed to be chastened, and she has 
now passed through the furnaces of trial and agony. 

Her reactionary representatives and colonial administrators 
at Paris tried to play the old diplomacy and wrote this despicable 
document; but, sirs, retribution, slow-footed, but inevitable, has 
overtaken them. At last the fires of liberty which Washington, 
Hamilton, Jefferson, and Lincoln kindled here upon this Western 

‘ontinent have illuminated the world and are consuming the old 
order. They have now warmed the hearts and are now shining 
in the faces of the 20,000,000 of members of this great new 
liberal party in England, who in the increasing light have them- 
selyes seen and have sworn to achieve what our commen an- 
cestors foresaw. 

England has failed in India, failed in Egypt, failed in all of 
Africa, because ef the successful resistance by her reactionary 
ieaders of this great colonial policy which has been urged by 
Macaulay and a long line of illustrious English liberals, and 
which now, under the liberal leadership which has been all but 
established in England as a result of the war, will become her 
permanent national policy, But in spite of what we hope from 
that liberal leadership in England, and however much we may 
desire to cooperate with it, we can not justify ourselves in sign- 
ing and sealing an international contract which gives and guar- 
antees to England nearly 931,000 additional square miles, a ter- 
ritory in area of approximately one-third of the United States, 
in Africa, and places in her charge more than 11,000,000 addi- 
tional helpless African natives, in view of her past policy in the 
Dark Continent, which policy has been characterized by heart- 
less exploitation, with practically no attempt to benevolently 
and intelligently elevate the peoples there, 

151429-—20190 


O 


A - ' a 
4 
c j \ \ - ae 
a f : 
= 
, - = 
~ . Ft PAS. 
+ , 
Z. + 8S 
=~ ‘ 


-_ =. f DTA Ase, Ha set f TPO? mn ore snd a re = Pe 
a ak 1%. Far: Soe ieee tes Aen feyalt dike ahi a 
“a , et Ne ae 
; ro. eS aye cae) Feb ee eae Se ae 2p Ae s1ih Frey 


M wet 5 PM obs os 
4 p 
Sata se ¢ Ses: , 
a : a4 a: ‘ 4 
7 v ' ic ae AVE 
‘i oe 2 eee 
cd 3M 65: fs Ae ee 
~ { we ‘ Ji, Oger ee ote net ant a 
y sch ane! Ti ORE Gies GE Onis Fae Sree 
=) : ae 
4k) ore 3 Lies et Rahat ae ie hehe 
* tT Ve ene Re iy eh Po 
‘ Pi «hee We iy as ke Wer 
’ oe id i tbe Wee te yey ia oes Bey —— if 
Sigs) ey nts ee wala th if f i Tips ey 
AIG SARS: VF We oe hie 
“Og n eet atra +. [oy eye Sayer WTR ee, 
‘ Z ey ama? ee at | ifthe" hy | vey alsin RE te 
to eet ei ap SPE Pl hsig ticciot +e fepacge 
Ae Ae alah 18 ignipde Peet Came 
tpt. bid Te or {Pitta AERA 8 
‘ea saen ey (izeat ee Peed th as lige 
(rate ¢ eae Te +e Se ae et il? weg Saat - 
‘ / r 3 As ; ¥ a 
ML TEEE 9 Wie Fie ae abla) Ain Yager: 
KEE E Co yihere” SE Re ret ne a baloateiat 
ry ‘ toh Feett ort Te zoe p (i a HES pie ieee 
‘ CR Pets? ee Tae eee five Hie: ee 
LNT ERIN os Tah Mie ge Waa leer titer’? Cane 
4 f . ad ited -- a 
CP a SE ts tab ead 
) Cy q 
* J . 
P = 
‘ 
' 7 : ¥ fs ‘ 
% “ a 
i =~ 
=, 7 , 
- ¢ ¥ 
f 
4 ae ‘ 
. > 7 ‘ y 
~ 2 ‘ ca 
fl y st oe. 
> 4s : f ini? 


. = 5 


: * r 7 
4 ‘ct an: Ve mere 
\ a sa : 


oan 


